NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over gross

[surreal1221]

Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g

I am down here now aren't I? I had enough after awhile and came down south to try something new. There's lots of pressure to perform. Too much pressure at times in the SE 135 world up north. At some point though, the pilots aren't really the ones that are setting the standard for this sort of thing. Yeah, everybody would like it if we weren't pushed to carry extra or take a flight in dog poo weather, but at some companies any sort of push back is considered being insubordinate, and results in you being persona non-grata in regards to scheduling, pay, upgrade potential, and more.

Part of the problem is that the FAA is willing to blame these things on pilots who accept the flights. They're willing to take a problem that is by and large management's fault, and pushes it onto the pilots. Then, like what empire said, the things that they are concerned about are mostly irrelevant or trivial when they should have been concerned about things like weight, weather, and similar things.

There is quite a history within Flying the Line Vol. I that discusses the infancy of freight flying (re: mail) and the amounts of pilot pushing that went on during the beginning.

But - yeah - guess you certainly have to pull that ejection handle when it is time to go. Just a shame that, I'm sure, there are folks who are stuck for financial reasons and have to put up with the risk since no one else (re: collectively) is going to.

 

[Hacker15e]

Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g

Part of the problem is that the FAA is willing to blame these things on pilots who accept the flights.

How is it NOT their fault?

If those things you mention...."scheduling, pay, upgrade potential, and more"...are negatively affected by pilots pushing back, yet pilots make the voluntary choice to keep violating the rules, how can it not be their fault?

It's the same argument we have about Regional pilots complaining about their crappy wages and work conditions; nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you work at outfits like this. Pilots who do so, do entirely by their choice and must be prepared to take responsibility for those decisions.

As an FAA-rated aviator, that means the responsibility includes shouldering the blame when things go wrong.

We can't have it both ways -- we're either the captains of our vessels or we're not.

 

[Nark]

Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g

Well said Hacker. It comes down to us as PIC's at the end of the day.



But...

It's not that black and white.

As an example; People pay top $$ and expect first class treatment. A Cherokee 6 is about the furthest from first class as it gets, and it's up to us as pilots, counter folks, and mechs to make it as first class as possible, so we can eat at the end of the day.

I've flexed my PIC muscle and wasn't popular.
I've also flexed the same PIC muscle, and became popular, because I made an intelligent decision based on my experience knowing the area and aircraft.

 

[Joe patel]

Why is he Suing the engine manufacturer? The 206 didn't climb very well; this wasn't due to an engine problem, A severely overweight airplane! Poor little 4 year old died, trusting his parents' judgment that it was OK for him to sit unbelted on his mother's lap for takeoff, as the girl did, behind the pilot. The COMMERCIAL-RATED pilot cranked in 30 degrees of flaps for takeoff, when the book (supplemental for the installed cargo pod) says 10. (The manual for the original airplane -- without the pod -- says 20, max.)

Let's see: the National Transportation Safety Board report [http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100602X45201&ntsbno=ANC10FA048&akey=1] said the airplane was overweight by about 658 pounds (MTOW is 3600lbs; this plane was at least 4258); CG estimated by the NTSB between about 3.95 and 8.82 inches b...ehind the aft limit; too much flap deployment (jackscrew indicated 25 degrees), and it didn't climb very well. No kidding!

Injuries to all the occupants were terrible, and the 4-year-old was killed. He was one of two passengers not wearing seat belts, and he was trapped under the instrument panel in the crash and died in the fire.

Over 330 pounds of tiles and 43 2x4 studs, among other items, were not secured, and could have shifted the CG aft (hence the wide, but always way aft, NTSB estimate of CG). The pilot put plants on top of all the cargo, and told the NTSB he figured that wedging many final items would keep the rest of the cargo from shifting.

So, obviously, it's the engine manufacturer's fault. Really, who could expect a commercial-rated pilot to know how to set flaps on a 206, or perform a weight-and-balance calculation, or ensure that all occupants ages 2 and 4 and over (all his occupants) were properly belted, or know that putting plants on loose cargo wouldn't keep the cargo from shifting, And who could expect a commercial-rated pilot to understand what "low compression" means? And if he didn't understand, who could expect a responsible adult to ask, considering he was putting his family aboard?

Suing Continental? Why isn't this guy under indictment for manslaughter or reckless endangerment?

 

[Hacker15e]

Re: NSTB Prelim on ANC 206 crash: At least 658 pounds over g

I totally agree -- there is a way to make these kinds of statements to your bosses tactfully.

But, I don't think that part is the bottom line, here.

I didn't say pilots who were doing that stuff were idiots, or shouldn't be doing it...I said that when they do, they must be prepared to take responsibility for it because no matter what the outside factors influencing their decisionmaking, it's their decision.

Pilots use ORM all the time to make decisions, and this is no different. If pilots are so attached to their job that they're willing to cave to management and do things that are against the rules or unsafe, that's them evaluating all the factors in their life and making the decision they feel is the best. If that decision results in certificate action from the FAA, then that's a risk they decided they were comfortable with at some point in the process.